The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-10-29
Mn. KrNNep,s ARGUMENT

record and the evidence being shut
out on u poiut Of law, because her
character had not been assailed.
The presumption in law then was
that her character was unblemished,
and that presumption stood by her.
He referred to the absence Of the
defendant, and contended that proof
should have been given why he was
not before the Court.
Mr.. Hatch interposed, saying that
no unfavorable comment could be
made upon fine fact of his refusing
to testify. If he had been present
and refused to go on the stand it
would have been different.
Mr.. Kinney said he did not want
Mr.. Gibson's silence to be used
against him, but he did not want it
used against this woman, and that
had been the contention of counsel.
His Honor said the only question
for the jury was the evidence pro-
duced. His silence could not be
used against him, and certainly not
against the plaintiff.
Mr.. Kinney went on to place in
juxtaposition the two women on
the one hand and the defendant
on the other. Counsel for defend
ant had depicted him as a man
easily taken in. lie did not think
that was counsel's experience of
Mr.. Gibson. If this were case of
blackmail, what gigantic plan it
must have been. If these two wo-
mon had the talent to sit down and
plan out such a scheme, they never
would have sought this little town
of Honolulu as the arena in which
to exercise it. They would have
turned their attention to. some more
important place than this. Again
referring to plaintiffs character, he
said woman did not live until she
was % before giving any sign of
her evil tendencies. The moral
descent was always gradual. Coun-
sci for the other side had said it was
extraordinary that there was nothing
in writing. He thought it would
have been most extraordinary
thing if Gibson had ever been caught
in writing. In that mans history
counsel did not think he had ever
been caught on paper. He then
proceeded at great length to dilate
upon Mr.. Gibson's alleged personal
characteristics. His theory of the
case was that defendant continued
the courtship so long as he could
carry it on without inconvenience to
himself, and then backed out of it.
Counsel ceased speaking at 10
O'Clock, when a short recess was
taken. Fifteen minutes later His
Honor commenced his
CHARGE TO THE JURY.
He said they had listened for
three hours to the arguments of
counsel as to what they should be-
leve and what they should not be-
lieve, and as to the credlbility of
certain witnesses. The question of
evidence rested entirely with them,
and the Court would not analyze it.
The Court would instruct them as
to the law, which they were to abide
by. If the Courts instructions
were erroneous, then exceptions
would be taken and the instructions
would be subject to correction by
the full Court. The responsibility
as to the law in this case rested on
the Court and not on the jury.
But the Court would not refer to
the evidence or the credibility of
witnesses. The foundation of this
case was an alleged promise of mar
riage by the defendant and its ac-
ceptance by the plaintiff. That
would be the first question to con-
slider whether or not there had been
this promise and acceptance. If
they found from the evidence that
the parties had mutually agreed to
marry, they would then have to de-
termine whether there had been a
breach of that promise. 1t was for
them to determine what credibility
was to be attached to the witnesses.
There must be a meeting of the
minds of the parties-a request on
the one side and assent On the other
for there TO have been promise
in the legal sense. 1t was not ne
cessary for the actual words in
which it was couched, and the time
and place at which they were
spoken, to be found but the conclu-
sons must be drawn from the evil
dence itself. Then they would have
to consider the contingent circum-
stances. If man said to woman,
eff l marry anyone l will marry
you," that would not be sufficient
to constitute promise. They must
be satisfied that there had been a
positive contract. There did not
appear to be any legal disability to
the marriage. Neither of the par
ties were minors. The visits alone
would notbe sufficient to warrant them
in finding that an engagement ex-
listed between the parties. A good
deal had been said about the char
acter of the plaintiff and her counsel
had offered dispositions from San
Francisco, Los Angeles and else
where to show that she bore good
character. They had heard the rul-
inc of the Court raoardinr fhose do